My preferred attack would be Lillee, Marshall, McGrath/Ambrose and Warne.

But I think having a bowling attack of Marshall, Hadlee, Imran and Warne is very close to being as good as my preferred one, and I think the difference in batting depth could legitimately win you a match, particularly if your team is able to bat first.

I'd probably select Lillee/Marshall/McGrath or Ambrose & Warne in my ATG team because I think they are the greatest bowlers and should be accorded that status, but I'd prefer the batting depth of Imran/Hadlee/Marshall and Warne in a real match. I think that makes sense...

The next question is - how many runs would Imran make against an ATG bowling attack given that he faced few bowling attacks of a similar quality to McGrath-Ambrose-Hadlee-Murali (for example)? Would his contribution be significantly greater than Marshall's? Also, if Sobers and co are struggling against McGrath-Ambrose-Hadlee-Murali then I don't think that we could expect too much from either Imran or Marshall. In other words, only an ATG batsman can survive and make significant runs against an ATG bowling attack. From 8 down it's more-or-less cannon fodder no matter what bowlers you put in.

I even doubt the ability of Gilchrist to keep his off-stump for very long should Ambrose target him from around the wicket, such was his well known weakness. If I want a keeper to bat for long periods the I would want Allan Knott at the crease because his averages against Lillee-Thomo (1974-75), and Holding-Roberts (1976) are remarkably good for a non-specialist batsman - but I've just gone off topic there, sorry.

@ NUFAN and co. Nah, the difference in bowling between the ATGs is minimal. This is why we have so many arguments on who the best bowler ever is.

To use an example of a never ending debate that would be resolved very easily, Warne v Murali is actually very easy to split if you factor in batting and fielding. Warne wins every time when you're selecting a team.

When you have two players of roughly the same ability you factor in what else they bring to the side. This happens in cricket all the time and it would happen when selecting a team to take on the Martians.

Last edited by Flem274*; 03-07-2013 at 06:51 PM.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.

Originally Posted by Athlai

Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.

That doesn't fit my criteria though because Imran would be batting at 8. Pick two bowlers in both teams at 8 and 9 and then give me two alternatives for 10 and 11 and I will pick the two bowlers who I think are best every time unless I think they are exactly the same bowling wise.

The only position for bowlers that batting should make a difference is possibly the #8 position, beyond that the absolute best bolwers should be selected, unless they are absolutely equal as bolwers and the batting could be used to separate them (Warne vs Murali). So with Imran in the order, no need to say force in a Hadlee over a (for me) superior bolwer like McGrath, Lillee or Ambrose.

The only position for bowlers that batting should make a difference is possibly the #8 position, beyond that the absolute best bolwers should be selected, unless they are absolutely equal as bolwers and the batting could be used to separate them (Warne vs Murali). So with Imran in the order, no need to say force in a Hadlee over a (for me) superior bolwer like McGrath, Lillee or Ambrose.

I don't really get the logic of not wanting better accomplished batsmen at #9 and #10 when they're pretty much comparable as bowlers. While they might only make 20 runs, if they're in a partnership with Sobers or Gilchrist, that partnership could be worth 80 runs or whatever. Could be the difference between a team being bundled out for 320 or making 500 plus. In the context of wanting to win a game, that's huge.

@ NUFAN and co. Nah, the difference in bowling between the ATGs is minimal. This is why we have so many arguments on who the best bowler ever is.

To use an example of a never ending debate that would be resolved very easily, Warne v Murali is actually very easy to split if you factor in batting and fielding. Warne wins every time when you're selecting a team.

When you have two players of roughly the same ability you factor in what else they bring to the side. This happens in cricket all the time and it would happen when selecting a team to take on the Martians.

This still doesn't change the fact that I want Lillee-Marshall-Barnes-Warne for my bowling attack. And I'm not going to let a minor philosophical point about how many runs a No.8 should or shouldn't make get in the way of that.

Of course that particular attack may be ****-house in reality, but I happen to like it just the same. I feel the same way about my old Ford, if you get what I mean.

The only position for bowlers that batting should make a difference is possibly the #8 position, beyond that the absolute best bolwers should be selected, unless they are absolutely equal as bolwers and the batting could be used to separate them (Warne vs Murali). So with Imran in the order, no need to say force in a Hadlee over a (for me) superior bolwer like McGrath, Lillee or Ambrose.

You're kidding yourself if you think whatever minimal difference there may be between the top ten to twenty best ever bowlers cancels out the gulf in batting ability between a few top bowlers and the rest.

Enjoy losing your last four wickets for diddly squat.

Originally Posted by watson

This still doesn't change the fact that I want Lillee-Marshall-Barnes-Warne for my bowling attack. And I'm not going to let a minor philosophical point about how many runs a No.8 should or shouldn't make get in the way of that.

Of course that particular attack may be ****-house in reality, but I happen to like it just the same. I feel the same way about my old Ford, if you get what I mean.

That's cool and I get that, but we weren't discussing you favourite players eleven, we're discussing the best possible eleven ever.

For mine, Marshall and McGrath are the best two bowlers to play the game, I want them sharing the new ball for my team. To boot, Marshall, Warne and Imran were pretty good with the bat and quite frankly good enough not to be bowled out for diddly squat.

In all pitch and weather conditions I believe Lillee-Marshall-Barnes-Warne to be the best bowling combination in the history of cricket. It just so happens that they are also among my favourite bowlers of all time as well. So you put the two things together (best + favourite) and the 'Imran must bat at No.8 because he would score a few more runs than Marshall' argument, while being a good one, is still not compelling enough to dismantle such a great attack (in my view).

But I can still can understand why many consider Imran and Lillee/Barnes as interchangeable strike-bowlers, and therefore justify Imran on the basis of having an extra 'feather in his cap'.